Drabbels v. Drabbels
25 Neb. Ct. App. 102
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties: Darren and Michelle Drabbels divorced; one child born 2013. District court awarded Michelle physical custody and ordered Darren to pay child support.
- Trial focused on custody, property division, and child support; neither party challenged custody/property on appeal.
- Darren employed as journeyman lineman; earned $33.35/hr (40 hrs/wk). Employer paid $1,935.52/month for Darren’s and child’s health insurance and $12,555.61/year in retirement contributions; Darren paid nothing out-of-pocket for these benefits.
- District court calculated Darren’s gross monthly income as $7,716 by adding employer-paid health insurance to wages, allowed a $375 retirement deduction, and set child support at $880/month; court did not address childcare cost allocation.
- Both parties appealed: Darren argued health-insurance inclusion without corresponding deduction/credit was error; Michelle argued the court omitted fringe benefits, mischaracterized taxable income, and erred on retirement and childcare allocations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer-paid health insurance may be included in Darren’s income without giving deduction/credit | Darren: Court erred by imputing employer-paid premiums as income but not granting deduction/credit | Michelle: Court may treat employer-paid premiums as part of income | Court: Reversed—court abused discretion including employer-paid premiums as income; recalc income using wages only ($5,781/mo) and no deduction/credit for premiums |
| Whether Darren’s fringe benefits (overtime, safety award, paid leave) must be included in income | Michelle: Include all fringe benefits in income | Darren: Some benefits are speculative/not guaranteed | Court: Affirmed exclusion of speculative/irregular benefits; no abuse of discretion excluding overtime, safety award, paid leave without proof of regularity |
| Whether retirement deduction was appropriate for Darren | Michelle: No deduction should be allowed because contributions made by employer, not by Darren | Darren: Court allowed $375 deduction for retirement contributions | Court: Reversed—no out-of-pocket retirement contributions proved, so deduction improper; employer contributions not includable as readily available income |
| Whether childcare expenses should be allocated between parties | Michelle: Court erred by not allocating childcare costs; they had been split and child attends daycare because both work | Darren: (Implicit) leave allocation to court or maintain status quo | Court: Remanded—district court erred by failing to address allocation of childcare expenses; remand to allocate costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Patton, 20 Neb. App. 51 (appellate review in dissolution is de novo) (standard of review for child support)
- Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 452 (trial judge credibility findings may be afforded weight on appeal)
- Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901 (flexible approach to income for child support; equitable considerations)
- Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122 (court should avoid basing income findings on entirely speculative income)
- Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373 (same principle regarding speculative income)